Supermarket letter – 23
SUPERMARKET NEWSLETTER NO. 23
1. AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
2. Unjustified statements by FNV about wages and rickety seats of AH franchisee;
3. Albert Heijn liable for a slippery floor.
In a case from FNV against Albert Heijn about employees whose wages at a franchisee were higher than the collective labor agreement wages, the question was whether Albert Heijn could reduce wages if it had taken over the franchisee’s shop.
Click here for the entire article.
![223carts-one-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/223carts-one-min.jpg)
Other messages
Purchase obligation and competitive prices
On 9 September 2015, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands rendered a judgment on the question of whether a franchisor used market-based prices in the case of an exclusive purchase obligation.
The franchisor must demonstrate the correctness of the prognosis
The franchisor must demonstrate the correctness of the prognosis
Rules of the game for internet sales
On 21 July 2015, the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal ruled in a case involving a franchise agreement for a hairdressing supplies company.
Reasonable term for terminating the continuing performance contract
Reasonable term for terminating the continuing performance contract
The importance of interest in a non-compete clause
The importance of “interest” in a non-compete clause
Bonuses that are not in the franchise agreement
The Court of Appeal in The Hague On 31 March 2015, a dispute was submitted between a franchisee and franchisor about the settlement after termination of the franchise agreement with regard to bonuses.